I was set on getting the 6d but then I began to browse through hundreds of photos on flickr and the like to get an idea of the general 'look' of the respective camera's output.

I noticed that although the 6d looks more natural on landscapes and it far outperforms on low-light, the images of people seem a bit soft and gray in comparison to MKII images.

mind you I chose my 5d first series because I thought that portaits looked a little more authoritative, for lack of a better word.

today I checked-out a 6d and a MKII in a shop and got a feel for the cameras but it really is impossible to know how they are going to behave unless you are shooting a model etc.

so my question is aimed to those who have used MKII's extensively and have used 6d's as well in real-world portrait photography.

I have complete faith in the 6d's capacities in landscape, low-light etc. but my primary interests have more to do with how skin tones come-out as well as how much weight the profile of the person has in relation to the background etc.

I have complete faith in the 6d's capacities in landscape, low-light etc. but my primary interests have more to do with how skin tones come-out as well as how much weight the profile of the person has in relation to the background etc.

I can't speak to the artistic qualities directly, as I am not a portrait photographer. From a technical and technological standpoint, however, I would offer that the 6D's IQ should be just as good, if not better, than the 5D II. It is a newer sensor, generated with a more refined process (not necessarily new process...it is still the same old 500nm process that Canon has used for over a decade, but it certainly more refined.)

On the standpoint of color reproduction....that is really all just math. The "strait out of the camera" quality can indeed be influenced by the sensor design and manufacture, and on that front, my previous point holds true. It is the same process, same general technology, with a number of refinements and other improvements. The rest is all math...tone curves applied per-channel during the demosaicing process. Technically speaking, there should be nothing, whatsoever, stopping you from achieving the tonality you desire. You could even pick up Adobe's camera profile generator for Lightroom, use a Color Checker card, and generate profiles that best fulfill your expectations. Set one of those as a default, and every time you import photos into Lightroom, your custom profile will be applied, accurately reproducing YOUR expectations.

As for the subject relative to the background...does that not all boil down to framing and lighting? The 6D is a full-frame sensor, so technically speaking it is no different than the 5D or 5D II from a perspective, DOF, and boke standpoint. If you use an 85mm lens up close, with a distant background, you'll get the same composition and perspective out of the 6D as you would out of the 5D, 5D II, or any other 36x24mm FF sensor. Any other factor that relates subject to background would have to do with environment, rather than equipment. If you want your subject to be isolated against a dark background, do the same thing you always would...subject close to the light source, background far from the light source. Etc. etc.

My concerns are purely from a perception standpoint, not technical.. I am aware that the 6d is technically superior to the 5dmkii but that doesn't mean that out of 100 images of portraits, the MKII might have more keepers because of the overall look that the image has

likewise the perception of an image being 'in your face' and foreward doesn't necessarily have to do with the sensor being technically superior. I am more concerned with the visual feel that the camera produces and would like to know if any 5dmkii users have had a sensation that the 6d was a bit too soft or produced flatter looking portraits (or the opposite)

I think that is the crux of your problem, though. Perception is fluid. It changes from person to person, and can even change for the same person over time, or even depending on the time of day or the lighting a photo is viewed in. Your asking a highly subjective question, and could thus get as many different answers as there are answerers. I was trying to offer an objective basis upon which you could answer the question for yourself.

My concerns are purely from a perception standpoint, not technical.. I am aware that the 6d is technically superior to the 5dmkii but that doesn't mean that out of 100 images of portraits, the MKII might have more keepers because of the overall look that the image has

likewise the perception of an image being 'in your face' and foreward doesn't necessarily have to do with the sensor being technically superior. I am more concerned with the visual feel that the camera produces and would like to know if any 5dmkii users have had a sensation that the 6d was a bit too soft or produced flatter looking portraits (or the opposite)

Hi, I've seen this too. Actually your concerns are from a technical standpoint you're asking about color depth and technically the 6D does slightly better (not as good as the 5D3 though).

However the 6D does a lot better in signal to noise ratios; so it could be most people with the 6D right now are exploiting that feature and shooting in the 3200 to 6400 ISO range (I know I am lol), also if they shoot in auto the camera won't hesitate to use 3200 or 6400 ISO, the 5D2 on the other hand was noisy and ugly at 3200 so most people know to stay under 1600 with it. Now the issue here is even though the high ISOs are cleaner in noise you still get a lower color depth at high ISOs on a 6D than on a 5D2 under ISO 1600 (remember the 6D was only "slightly" better at color depth) so this mean less color (flatter look).

I think that's the main issue but the 6D also has a little more dynamic range in the lower ISO range too and you said you were viewing the images on flicker, well if you're using an sRGB monitor or HDTV (like me) you are stuck viewing a Rec.709 color space which is only meant for 5-7 stops of dynamic range and when you squeeze a 12 stop image into that without doing proper mid-tone curve adjustments it will squeeze that 12 stops together to fit into 7 which means (yup) a flatter image. So the 6D might look very slightly flatter than 5D2 because of this too but I don't think it would be much of a noticeable difference so it's probably the high ISOs. The best way to compare would be viewing prints that were printed using the AdobeRGB(98) color space.

I say get the 6D but for pictures when color is important keep the ISO low.

If you are doing portraits, either camera would be totally fine. If you go outside, the MKII has the advantage of a higher shutter speed to dim bright sunlight. 1/8000 comes in handy vs. the 6D 1/4000 speed. In daytime conditions/portraits, you rarely need anything above 400 ISO.

I'm a little confused by all this, and it looks like I'm not the only one. Whose photos are you looking at? Are they all straight-out-of-camera, and are you planning on never processing your images?

As soon as a photo is edited beyond the basics, any detailed camera comparison or analysis becomes far less meaningful. The camera's sensor and settings will get you started, but post-processing is almost universally a part of digital photography.

If you're talking about peak performance of a camera, the only things you can compare are the technical specs, and some qualities like sharpness are more related to the lens used. I don't see the point of an artistic comparison of camera bodies. Like others have said, it's too subjective to really mean anything.

It all depends on what you do and what you mean by people photography. I wouldn't want the 6D for two reasons: (even) lower x-sync speed which can quickly become a problem for standard studio flash shots, especially if you like wider apertures. And the the 1/4000 limit can be a factor. May not be a big deal for a lot of people but I tend to often use 1/8000 to darken backgrounds outdoors and in sunlight. 1/4000 or 1/8000 does make a difference for that.And I don't like the smaller size, amount of plastic and what they did to the buttons. 5DII for me. YMMV.

It all depends on what you do and what you mean by people photography. I wouldn't want the 6D for two reasons: (even) lower x-sync speed which can quickly become a problem for standard studio flash shots, especially if you like wider apertures. And the the 1/4000 limit can be a factor. May not be a big deal for a lot of people but I tend to often use 1/8000 to darken backgrounds outdoors and in sunlight. 1/4000 or 1/8000 does make a difference for that.And I don't like the smaller size, amount of plastic and what they did to the buttons. 5DII for me. YMMV.

I think you may have hit on the two key issues with the 6D for portraiture: flash sync speed and maximum shutter speed. Both of those can really end up being problematic when trying to get a certain kind of lighting and shading with flash, or in outdoorsy scenarios. The x-sync speed was still a bit of an issue on the 5D II, though, wasn't it? At only 1/200th? (Or did the 5D II have a 1/250th?)

I was set on getting the 6d but then I began to browse through hundreds of photos on flickr and the like to get an idea of the general 'look' of the respective camera's output.

I noticed that although the 6d looks more natural on landscapes and it far outperforms on low-light, the images of people seem a bit soft and gray in comparison to MKII images.

mind you I chose my 5d first series because I thought that portaits looked a little more authoritative, for lack of a better word.

today I checked-out a 6d and a MKII in a shop and got a feel for the cameras but it really is impossible to know how they are going to behave unless you are shooting a model etc.

so my question is aimed to those who have used MKII's extensively and have used 6d's as well in real-world portrait photography.

I have complete faith in the 6d's capacities in landscape, low-light etc. but my primary interests have more to do with how skin tones come-out as well as how much weight the profile of the person has in relation to the background etc.

anyone see an artistic advantage with the 5dII's IQ?

I personally liked the 5D Mk III's colors over the 6D. You are right that the 6D has more neutral colors, yes you can edit colors to be anything you want, but if you look at comparisons the 5D Mark III actually has a better color depth in back to back tests, so you end up losing some color information that you can never get back with the 6D, at the cost of having more neutral tones.

So in the end the 5D Mark III has some more noticeably tainted colors, (in a good way if you ask me), but the color information is also noticeably higher quality.

I would also strongly disagree with those who say that the 6D is better than the 5D III in low light. This is an optical illusion. The 6D has less color noise but more grain. Meaning that they actually will have identical levels of noise, as shown by tests, they just require different noise reduction settings. The 5D Mark III is just uglier unprocessed.

Also the 6D at iso 102400 is actually iso 70000 while the 5D Mark III is iso 77000, and there are other discrepancies between the ISO ratings. In the end again both have identical levels of noise over the whole of the frame.

The 6D does have a better center AF point, enabling it to work in ultra low light, but it's autofocus is very poor and outdated, and essentially a 5D Mark II autofocus system with some added spice. The 5D 3's autofocus is much better.

The 6D has much better dynamic range though, and I would love it if the 5D III had that dynamic range, and the ultra sensitive AF points for certain rare situations where I find myself needing those, bu the 5D III offers more features that are more broadly beneficial than the 6D.

I am a portrait photographer, and I love the 6D. I find the increased dynamic range (over the 5DII) huge for smoother transitions on faces, and the AF is much more accurate for nailing those sharp eyes.

I have not used the 6D but I have both the 5Dmk2 and 3 and also had a 5Dclassic.

I shoot a lot of architecture and need to have a uniform look to my work. I have no problem making the mk2 and mk3 look the same. I DO prefer the operation of the mk3 with its electronic level and silent shooting and great AF but as far as image there is scant difference in the final result.And no, I do not have to cr@pify my mk2 files to match the mk3.

I would assume that the 6D would be similar.The observed SOOC shortcomings of ANY camera are a consequence of the default settings of a zillion different options. To really see whether you like a particular camera I would rent it for a week of intensive use.

I have not used the 6D but I have both the 5Dmk2 and 3 and also had a 5Dclassic.

I shoot a lot of architecture and need to have a uniform look to my work. I have no problem making the mk2 and mk3 look the same. I DO prefer the operation of the mk3 with its electronic level and silent shooting and great AF but as far as image there is scant difference in the final result.And no, I do not have to cr@pify my mk2 files to match the mk3.

I would assume that the 6D would be similar.The observed SOOC shortcomings of ANY camera are a consequence of the default settings of a zillion different options. To really see whether you like a particular camera I would rent it for a week of intensive use.

+1 This is great advice and is very true. The difference in dynamic range is a plus, but any perception of more pop from a 5DII is a symptom of settings or processing. Renting and trying is great advice.